Aulenback, Inc. And Truckers United for Safety v. Federal Highway Administration

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that appellants “offer[ed] no reason why, if the rescission of the [government action] ... did not bring back their customers, a declaratory judgment would be likely to do so”
• noting that the companies “maintainfed] that they continue[d] to suffer the effects of the out-of-service orders,” including “continued injury to their reputations”
• explaining that “[c]omplete settlement” of claims “moots an action,” thereby divesting plaintiffs of standing to sue
• noting that the agencies \do not develop written guidelines to aid their exercise of discretion only at the peril of having a court transmogrify those guidelines into binding norms subject to notice and comment strictures.\ (quotation marks and citations omitted)
• describing how settlement moots a case in light of the Article III requirement of “a substantial controversy, between parties having adverse legal interests, of sufficient immediacy and reality”
• \That [publication] gives [staff] crisper and more detailed guidance ... than that provided by [statute] does not render [publication's] provisions subject to notice and comment requirements.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).